Sunday, January 29, 2012

OK - so I'm listining to C-SPAN in the grocery store, and they're replaying one of this morning's network shows. They're talking to some guy involved with one of the campaigns - I think Newt's - and he was discussing some new poll of Hispanic voters in Florida who were not too keen on the GOP.

This guy argues that Hispanics are going to warm up to the Republicans because family values are very important to them.

Now - maybe this is just a rally-the-base kind of comment. But what the hell is this supposed to mean? Are Democrats not supportive of family values? Or for that matter, are Hispanics supposed to be uniquely supportive of family values? Has he ever considered that they aren't supporting Republicans precisely because of how they approach family values?

And a lot of Republicans actually think like this, I think. They think that half the country just doesn't care about family and ethics.

And I hate to bring Ron Paul into this again, but he makes insanely idiotic comments like this too. "People are going to support me because they love liberty". Dog whistles are a staple for politicians seeking high office, but this sort of thing firmly convinces me that (1.) these people don't really understand a lot of the American people, (2.) they haven't really thought carefully about liberty - only their own reelection, and (3.) they haven't really thought carefully about family - only their own reelection.

I like it better - for example - when Newt Gingrich comes out and just says "Obama is pro-food stamps and I don't like them". That's clear. That's a demarcation. I think food stamps are a good program, so I know I side with Obama on this. When they muck it up with comments that are more vague like "Obama is pro-food stamps so he wants people to be dependent on government" they sound like idiots or opportunists. On Ron Paul - don't tell me you support liberty. I support liberty too, and I don't like you much. Tell me what you actually think and let me decide if you're the president for me.

Personally, I think Obama is a mass-murderer and believes in redistribution from the producers to the non-producers, so I would happen to agree with the statement that Obama is not pro-liberty. Killing and stealing certainly isn't consistent with any concept of liberty that I am familiar with.

And I think it goes without saying that if I thought there was a bit of sense to Joseph's "mass murderer" claim I wouldn't think of voting for the guy much less being positively disposed towards him on this blog.

I know that you think that it is completely fine for thousands of innocent people to be killed, I do not. In fact, I am certain that you'd be whistling a different tune if it were your family and friends being killed, or you had seen it for yourself. You rationalize your current position by saying "this is a time of war", yet you never seem to answer the question, who are we at war with? What was the actions of a relatively small group of people with no real national powers has now become the aggression of our military upon entire nations of people who had nothing to do with any aggression toward us. As CinC, all of those deaths are on our President's hands no matter how you rationalize it to yourself. And, no matter how you slice it, the killing of innocent people is murder.

No, Joseph, I'm not "completely fine" with thousands of innocent people getting killed. It's amazing to my that you have so much trouble understanding why I say it was provoked above when you say things like this.

I'm not dignifying this comment with any more of a response than that.

Speaker K saying that X will prefer Y because X cares about Z does not have to imply that A doesn't care about Z. It can just as well mean that Y has policies that better serve Z than does A in the opinion of K. DO u c?